The staggering number of US children accidentally killed by handling firearms that they have found around the house or vehicles of their family is good enough reason for me.

It is likely that none of those people who left their weapon in reach of children would be classified as a child-killing murderer.

Are you simple?

Are you? Was that comment too hard for you to understand?

No, those wouldn't be "child-killing murderers", of course..... but very irresponsible parents!

exactly my point.....as it is impossible to eradicate this type of parent



irresponsible parents + guns = possibility of accidental shooting death

irresponsible parents + no guns = no possibility of accidental shooting death

Funnily enough, that's sort of my point too! You can take everything away from irresponsible parents.... guns, knives, swimming pools, cars, stairs, household chemicals etc... but they'll still be irresponsible. The same goes for psycho scum sub-humans.

Well yes, I don't understand anyone who would seriously make the argument, such as

'If you were given a gun, would it turn you into a child-killing murderer?'
ermm...

and

'If you took guns away from the sub-human scum that would harm children, would it stop them doing so?'

hmmmm.

Well no, I don't understand anyone seriously making such an argument, this is the argument of someone acting dumb or is actually a bit twp.

Does owning a white van turn you into a homicidal maniac, well no, although someone did in Cardiff recently.

The argument above is as dumb as the famous 'it's not guns that kill, it's people'.

The sub-human scum are usually people that have mental problems, that should have been recognised and sometimes is, but because there is no money to treat them, or in America's case, the patient has no money they are left to their own devices.

The problem in the US being when someone has a breakdown or just generally pissed off with life in general, guns are easily obtainable.

Sure, if they couldn't get a gun, then a knife, machette or even a white van will do, the end effect is someone will get killed or hurt, but no-where near as many when the person can get hold of a gun, many guns, many guns that fire lots and lots of bullets.

So in fact, its the guns that do the killing, because they are available.

He's an interviewer, and they're supposed to keep their opinion to themselves, Larry King wouldn't have done that. It's just unprofessional. Now whenever someone who is pro-gun sits down in front of him (e.g. Brad Pitt) they're going to have an argument. Bone headed move on Piers Morgan's part, imo. He seems to be quite adept at the art of his own destruction, he lost his job at the Daily Mirror because he wouldn't believe those "torture" pictures weren't real.

This argument fails on the fact that guns are almost as easily available in Canada (guns equally so, some specific types of guns less so) and yet, perhaps, there are less massacres in Canada.

Define "staggering number". http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr60/nvsr60_03.pdf

Read page 81, says 554 total accidental deaths caused by firearm injury, but that's for everyone, not just children.

The US population in 2009 was estimated to be 305 million, so that's 0.18 deaths per 100,000 people.

Not insignificant I grant you but I wouldn't use the word "staggering".

Yes, people like Piers Morgan compare with the UK but you can prove anything with a sample size of two.

The firearm-related homicide rate in Canada is about one-fifth the rate in the US but the gun laws aren't really restrictive enough to explain the difference.

Canada has gun laws about on a par with some of the more restrictive US States, so firearm-related murder rates:

California - 6.67 per 100,000
New York - 4.61 per 100,000
New Jersey - 4.51 per 100,000
Massachusetts - 2.64 per 100,000
Hawaii - 2.61 per 100,000
Canada - 0.47 per 100,000

I think it would be a stretch to say Hawaii is full of homicidal maniacs and I can't see that smuggling guns there is any easier than smuggling them into Canada.

Maybe not staggering .....rather postively disgusting. I think accidental deaths of children in USA is the 7th highest cause of accidental death. I read this report http://www.childrensdefense.org/chil...-guns-2012.pdf

page 2 list accidental child gun deaths for 2008 and 2009 at 162 and 138 respectively


the most staggering statistic in the report though is the one which says that since 1979 the number of children killed by firearms in the US is three times the number of US soldiers killed in the whole of the Vietnam war.


The whole report is quite interesting.........definitely not written from the NRAs view of the world

The received wisdom is that 50,000 were killed in Vietnam. So, for that figure to be correct, 4,545 children must be killed each year (150,000/33). Do you have a link to any authority that supports such a position?

I quoted from the above report (I'm not claiming it as an authority)

here is the report which goes into the detail

http://www.childrensdefense.org/chil...-guns-2012.pdf


and here is the quote (although I now notice it uses the word 'teens' in its quote which will obviously make a difference)

Taking a 30-year snapshot when child gun death and injury data collection began,116,385 children and teens were killed by firearms between 1979 and 2009. Since 1979, America has lost nearly three times as many children
and teens to gunfire as the number of U.S. military personnel killed in action during the Vietnam War, and over 23 times the number of U.S. military personnel killed in action in Iraq and Afghanistan (5,013).

Not from the NRA's viewpoint, but some of the anti- brigade can be just as rabid!